Should the us have a mandetory military requirement

Question

I know people say it cant be done as we we would have too many soldiers than we could handle. but why not shorten the mandetory reqirement to like 2 months training ten months active duty. in this way it would remain managable i feel. also since women can not serve in combat roles in the military already it would not be necessary to include them in this requirment. Right now if we went to war say with communist china. they would crush us in a coventional war. they have a one million man standing army not including all of their reserves. after your mandetory requirment you are not needed for the rest of your life and you would feel like you have done something. people think this is pointless because America is the world power who could attack us but honestly with the amount of troops currently in our military we would be incapable of retaliating to an attack say from Iran who has a proffesional army unlike Iraq.

Answer 1

Sure...lets tie it to the right to vote and the drinking age.  If you go you get to vote and booze, if you pu$$y out and go to college, no vote or booze until age 26. TROOPS RULE!

Both Genders...women had it made till the Womans movement, so lets grant the eqality you always hear them screaming about!

Answer 2

I agree and disagree. I agree with a mandatory requirement, but not because of war. It would give kids a great start on their lives and would reinstill discipline and patriotism. They have the same requirement in Korea. China may a one million standing Army, but how many of them are in support roles? Its not like one million Soldiers are going to come running with weapons. And alot of their equipment is not even close to being as advanced as ours. The same with Iran. When it comes to the wide open, linear type of battlefield, the U.S. are the experts! Anyone who attacks the U.S. would be in a world of hurt! Not only do we have active, nat'l guard, and reserve, but look at the local authorities and other civil agencies. And the American people are not just going to stand by and let their country get taken by some foreigners. You got hillbillies, rednecks, bloods, crips, GDs, Latin Kings, and a whole bunch of other folks that would stand up for this country.

Answer 3

Wow. Um OK weeding past all the craziness in your post I'll say this: I don't want someone who doesn't want to be there in the first place watching my back in combat.

Answer 4

a very bad idea. one what good would a 10 month active enlistment do? it would be nothing more than a factory to to satisfy people like you who think we need  manditory military service in this free country. they would come out of training and serve their 10 months then get cast to the side. what's the point?

Iran's Military was just as profesional as Iraq's was. look what happened to them wiped out in very short order both times we confronted them.

China's numbers are just that numbers. yes they could steamroll by shear numbers in some circumstances, but that's not a big issue they can't get to the USA to attack us with out getting blow out of the water. which brings up another problem they don't have a Navy capable of getting over here to start with, let alone troop carrying abilities.

I'd be more worried about a Nuclear armed Iran than anything China brings to the table.

Answer 5

What?

Answer 6

We couldn't defend against an attack from Iran? Are you insane? Iraq had the World's 7th Largest Army! We went 12,000 miles, and stomped them in 3 days. The rest of your question is gibberish.

Answer 7

It's not needed. The all-volunteer force keeps meeting its enlistment and retention goals year in and year out. With the exception of the occupation of Tibet, China has not carried out anything remotely resembling extra-territorial aggression since its founding in 1949. And China does not have the lift capability to attack the U.S. Neither does Iran.

We have enough administrative and legal headaches trying to get people to serve a few days of jury duty. It is abundantly clear to me that there is no fervor for mandatory service in our population. They have been disciples in the "Let someone else do it" school of civic involvement for too long, viewing even the President's job as that of a Federal Wizard King. Most don't even know the name of their local Member of Congress. Less than half of those eligible to vote are registered to vote. Sorry. The people of this nation are not ready for any national movement except the "griping party".  

Answer 8

But thats what makes the U.S. Military the best, it is an all volunteer. That means the men are their fighting on their own free will, unlike Red China.

China has a draft style military, and at this time would loose a conventional war with America; boots on the ground doesn't win the war. They lack a strong air force and navy, which the U.S. excels in, and have no means of transporting those millions of troops. I don't care how many men you have, if they have no way of getting to our homeland just launch ballistic missile after missile until they are blown away.

And to your last statement, Iraq did have a conventional Army that the U.S. basically vaporized within the first few months of the invasion.

Answer 9

Mandatory military service is called conscription and was used to beef up our armed forces until shortly before the end of the Viet Nam war.

Switzerland has universal conscription and every fit male of military age is a member of the military reserve and has a firearm issued to them to keep in their home.  Switzerland has traditionally been neutral in any world conflagration and no power has ever invaded them.

I am of the opinion that universal conscription would be good because it would teach young men a degree of independence, self discipline and confidence that one just does not learn in civilian life.  Also, military service matures an otherwise immature person very qickly.

Contrary to your argument that universal conscription would overload us with soldiers, it would provide a large reserve military force (just like Switzerland) that could be mobilized and deployed quickly in the event of a national need.

I agree with you that China is the largest potential enemy and we need to be aware, alert and prepared in the event China starts flexing its muscles in our direction.  Teddy Roosevelt said it rather nicely, "Walk softly, but carry a BIG stick!"

Answer 10

No. 2 months of training? are you nuts???? You can NEVER have enough training...trust me. 2 months is NOT ENOUGH even for the basics.

As for having a "big" army...with the technologies we have now...we dont need a million men, we need smart well training men(women..whatever) so...yeah.  

Answer 11

No, but I do believe in order to serve in congress, the senate, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy/Army/AF or the President/Vice President of the United States you should have served atleast 4 years active duty served.  This would ensure that these individuals have experience taking orders and a general understanding of the military that they have control of.  I think this would be a huge benefit to the United States government.